@Alenanno: Yes, and preferably in general wider use, as well.
–
KrisDec 7 '11 at 10:00

4

Unengaged, disengaged? We often speak of someone being engaged in conversation when they're actively involved in a two-way communication, and it's certainly possible to speak in a disengaged tone when you don't really care what you're saying or what reply you might get.
–
FumbleFingersDec 7 '11 at 19:00

3

@Kris, Please edit the question and indicate where you plan to use the desired word or phrase, and what slant you prefer: pejorative, neutral, other. Does it make sense to offer a bounty for answers to an underspecified question?
–
jwpat7Dec 12 '11 at 3:07

13 Answers
13

Perhaps drive-by asker or drive-by participant, to convey that he comes in, makes his post/comment/etc, and then continues on his merry way. Related, from @onomatomaniak in comments: ask and run.

In other contexts we call someone who takes but never gives -- for example, communal snacks at work -- a mooch (or moocher) or a parasite. Depending on the specific case I don't see a problem with using those words online. Freeloader also comes to mind, though it is more general.

Edited for question revision: mooch, parasite, and freeloader are all perjorative; the drive-by phrases are probably slightly negative but not as much as those.

Distracted. It's possible that a person who was interested enough to ask a question, but didn't follow through with the process of discerning a helpful answer, was distracted by something else. It could be a shiny object, or it could be a sick child. It could be one or more of any number of things.

How about deadbeat? In the same way that a deadbeat dad spawns a human life that he does not concern himself to care for, a deadbeat asker could be construed as a person that spawns a discussion that he neglects to contribute to.

+1 This is very much like it. Can only use in a negative sense. @David Rivers: But whatabout Sarah's [see above] concerns?
–
KrisDec 13 '11 at 7:10

I understand, but lack sympathy, for such a distracted asker. The scenario reminds me of agreeing to have lunch with someone who then spends the entire time playing with her mobile device. If an asker is going to provoke a conversation, then she should have the respect for answerers to see it through.
–
David RiversDec 13 '11 at 19:55

@David Rivers, & Kris Unless they're expecting emergency-level information, I'd say the distracted lunch partner is exhibiting a highly objectionable form of rudeness, because it's a one-on-one, personal situation, etc. I'd rate lower the rudeness of the stack exchange asker distracted from the expected and desired follow through. I'd suggest a sliding scale of perceived rudeness dependent upon the distraction involved. If due to an emergency, I'd not see it as rude. Of course, we're not privy tot that info. However, I think deadbeat dads are in a (low) class all their own.
–
sarahDec 16 '11 at 4:25

I am not looking for terms with negative connotations as such, so how negative something is, is not really an issue anyway. Still researching for a phrase that is convenient and, maybe, politically correct as well.
–
KrisDec 16 '11 at 5:36

From my personal experience: in a software company there are typically three roles involved in a code review process, namely author, reviewer, observer.

An author is someone who posts his or her code for review. An reviewer is someone who must review the posted code and take some action in order for the code review process to proceed. An observer is someone who has access to the posted code and may or may not want to take a look at the code. What's more, an observer is not required to do anything if he does not want to.

I would say the question raiser in OP's case is an author the moment he posts the question on the site, and later he becomes an observer.

It would indeed be nice if he's actually observing. :) How'd you know?
–
KrisDec 12 '11 at 10:48

@Kris In the code review process, you are entitled to observe the whole process and provide comments, however, people wouldn't know or even care whether you really do so. For example, when I am assigned an observer role, I usually pay little attention to the posted code and focus on other tasks unless I am really interested in the code others write.
–
Terry LiDec 12 '11 at 14:36

Sure, that is true in code review. My comment refers to the one who asks a question and ... :)
–
KrisDec 13 '11 at 7:13

unresponsive: not reacting in a suitable way to what people say or do.
(unresponsive to: Helen has been unresponsive to all my suggestions.)

impassive: not showing any emotion.

impervious: not affected by something or not seeming to notice it.

insusceptible: not easily influenced or affected.

pachydermatous: thick-skinned (see its definition below).

stolid: showing little or no emotion or interest.

thick-skinned: insensitive to criticism or hints.

If you ask me which one I prefer, I say thick-skinned. Unresponsive is also a good choice and can be used in more formal contexts. Note that the above terms may have different meanings in different contexts. I gave the related meanings with respect to your question.

You make it difficult to choose from equally good alternatives! However, any of these could also be someone who formally does respond in some way. It isn't obvious that he failed to respond. See also the new edit.
–
KrisDec 7 '11 at 10:07

We are now closer to the answer. We need something with the sense of coasting [Theta30] (hence, ?coaster) and the currency of unresponsive [Mehper C. Palavuzlar].
–
KrisDec 10 '11 at 8:02

@Mepher Could you expand on that answer? Perhaps giving more detailed reasons you'd pick one of those words? Or even a better description of what they mean?
–
PureferretDec 11 '11 at 12:24

There is a thread over on meta SO that references this idea named The Help Vampire problem. I've pasted the question below, but the answers in the thread are very interesting.

What is SO's long-term solution for the Help Vampire problem?

Quote from article follows:

Identifying Help Vampires can be tricky, because they look like any
ordinary person (or internet user, whichever is lesser). But by
closely observing an individual's behavior using this handy checklist,
you too can identify Help Vampires in the field:

Does he ask the same, tired questions others ask (at a rate of once or
more per minute)?

Does he clearly lack the ability or inclination to
ask the almighty Google?

Does he refuse to take the time to ask
coherent, specific questions?

Does he think helping him must be the
high point of your day?

Does he get offensive, as if you need to prove
to him why he should use Ruby on Rails?

Is he obviously just waiting
for some poor, well-intentioned person to do all his thinking for him?

Can you tell he really isn't interested in having his question
answered, so much as getting someone else to do his work?

Can't see how the root didáskein, (Gk: to teach) is associated with the idea at hand. Hypodidact could probably imply an under-tutored? educationally-challenged?
–
KrisDec 17 '11 at 4:32

1

Granted, I am not a Greek expert. Studied the roots as an etymology aficionado, but essentially clueless in the workings of the actuall language. But in English usage, as "didact" means "one who teaches", I would think "hypodidact" means "one who under-teaches" as opposed to "under-taught".
–
Jonathan Van MatreDec 17 '11 at 5:23

I didn't restrain myself to think of this as just a "pattern of behavior" but also a relationship between the participants of the discussion, and a symbiotic one at that.

Of the different symbiotic relationships, commensal and parasitic were more relevant to the question. (Commensal, "of a form of symbiosis in which one organism derives a benefit while the other is unaffected". Parasitic, "drawing upon another organism for sustenance" or "exploiting another for personal gain.")

Since commensal is neutral and parasitic is malicious, commensal qualifies as my answer.
A commensal poster if I may.